Every week someone new gets ‘cancelled’. Kevin Spacey, Woody Allen, Kanye West, Rosanne Barr are all examples of recent years.
It happens to brands too. Just last week, chic, celebrity-endorsed gyms Equinox and SoulCycle hit the skids after the owner’s plans to hold a huge fundraiser for Donald Trump were exposed.
A recent (excellent) article on The Quietus about Michael Jackson’s legacy gave this definition:
“Cancel culture, or call-out culture, is a recent phenomenon by which artists or public figures are immediately sent to a perpetual Coventry for actions or thoughts deemed inappropriate by the public…”
There are deeper, socio-cultural currents at play too, as communications strategist and writer Camonghne Felix, explains:
“..cancellation isn’t personal but a way for marginalized communities to publicly assert their value systems through pop culture.”
The moral question
Considering the role of communications in the cancel/call-out climate currently throws up plenty of questions and precious few answers.
The first question seems to be: is it even a communications issue at all? Depending on the nature of the ‘crime’ it might be a purely moral concern, a black-and-white issue of right and wrong that comms people shouldn’t get involved with.
But if there is scope for giving strategic advice, there’s the consideration of what’s at stake, as communications professionals, if we take the job on. Is an attempt to rehabilitate a person or an organisation a display of aligning with their opinions?
Are we damaging our own professional reputations by being associated or can we exist outside the issue? We’re not in the legal profession, we can’t wrap ourselves in the same cloak of neutrality and objectivity, so judgment is everything.
And at a personal level, can we separate our own views from those of the subject? We might not approve of the ‘crime’ but does that mean we can’t help the individual or brand to rehabilitate? And, conversely, what if we believe they have done no wrong – are we really best placed to advise them?
The answers to these questions are likely to be different in every instance.
Can communications reverse cancellation..?
Moral quandaries aside, on the question of whether a strategic communications approach can even effect any change in these circumstances, it’s unclear whether it holds any power at all.
Until recently, the response of the disgraced celebrity in Western culture would follow a predictable pattern. The path of transgression, followed by contrition and leading to ultimate redemption for most of those in the public eye who have mis-stepped, mis-spoken or smoked-but-not-inhaled is well trodden and has been for the past generation.
But cancel culture doesn’t seem to offer such a formulaic way back into the warm glow of public approval. Some people disappear into the wilderness and don’t return, while others are luckier. For example, Mel Gibson came back, Kevin Spacey’s still there.
Closer to home, Danny Baker was cast out three months ago but a new episode of his podcast landed only this morning, which must indicate some perceived reduction in hostilities, if only from his co-host, Gary Lineker.
Maybe it’s an issue of the severity of the misdemeanour, the time elapsed, how sincerely an apology is adjudged to be, or a softening or simple forgetfulness on the part of the audience. Or all of these things. Or something else entirely.
Watch, wait and learn
Public approval has been democratised to the mass audiences of social media who exercise it by withholding attention (unfollowing) or through commercial pressure (not buying the product). This is what gives cancel culture its (at least from a communications perspective) mercurial and unpredictable power.
There’s not an identifiable pattern yet of how, once someone has been cancelled, to move the debate on, and perhaps there never will be. So maybe the only role for comms people for now is to watch, wait and learn.
And, of course, to make sure none of their clients get cancelled in the first place.
Richard Ellis Communications 